If Election result 2016 declared illegal, what then?

Right. Removal from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a Constitutional remedy. Removal for office because he plays golf, and golf is not called out in the Constitution, is not.

Click to expand...

did you even read the post you responded to? again if some did anything to the extent of ignoring or neglecting their official duties they could be impeached for high crimes or misdemeanors, yes even golf. the high in high crimes and misdemeanors doesn't refer to more severe actions but to the higher standards we apply to those in public office. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/High Crimes and Misdemeanors

from the source

The generally accepted viewpoint is much broader. It defines high crimes and misdemeanors as any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities. Supporters of this reading believe that because impeachment is a public inquiry, first and fore-most, it is appropriate to read the phrase broadly in order to provide the most thorough inquiry possible. Thus, a civil officer may face impeachment for misconduct, violations of oath of office, serious incompetence, or, in the case of judges, activities that undermine public confidence or damage the integrity of the judiciary.

Click to expand...

it should note that both trump and pence can and should be impeached under such a viewpoint. trump for incompetence pence for violation of oath of office for his pushing evangelical protestantism.

where the court ruled that the contribution had to be money/or monetizable
otherwise, such a prohibition could run afoul of the 1st amendment.

Click to expand...

Which has since, in Citizens United, been extended to include protection for money and monetizable stuff. We noticed.
But foreign government and agent contributions are subject to specific prohibitions, including "gifts" and "titles" and the like, which are not "monetizable". And foreign governments or agents of same are not protected when engaging in hostile acts or criminal behavior - such as computer hacking, or marketing of contraband.
And there are limits on what can be provided to a campaigning candidate, specifically, by anyone.

Offering extremely valuable intelligence gathered by agents of a foreign government in return for betraying the interests of the United States and promoting the interests of that government or its wealthy supporters would qualify, right?

The restrictions on criminal enterprise, meanwhile, are outside this discussion entirely. Plans to launder Russian money or protect Russian organized crime for personal gain are not protected by the First Amendment, for example, even if verbal only.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

for me its simply that if we refuse to protect the integrity of our elections we lose the ability to govern with any sort of real capability. Poland in the later years of the elective monarchy comes to mind. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was at one point the largest and most powerful country and fell apart in part because of outside interests getting involved in their elections. While i don't think the US would ever get that bad it does show what allowing foreign meddling in ones elections can do. We need to have a hard line here and if it causes a constitutional crisis so be it, I believe that price to be cheaper than letting a candidate stay in office who had foreign support in his favor.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm kinda bewildered by people who consistently downplay or dismiss the significance of foreign meddling in elections. Or they turn it into something innocuous or benign--you know, like how "influence" becomes "advice" or "counsel."

The aspect I don't see being discussed all that much (or maybe it is, and I'm just overlooking it) is public perception. The U.S. has been plagued by low voter turnout for quite some time now, and can you really fault people for abstaining from voting when elections themselves are compromised, yet the results go unchallenged ?

The only way I see the end of Trump is if there’s overwhelming evidence he rigged the 2016 election. In which case impeachment isn’t an adequate remedy. His presidency should be annulled. ...

The only response to an unconstitutional presidency is to annul it. Annulment would repeal all of an unconstitutional president’s appointments and executive actions, and would eliminate the official record of the presidency.

Annulment would recognize that all such appointments, actions, and records were made without constitutional authority.

The Constitution does not specifically provide for annulment of an unconstitutional presidency. But read as a whole, the Constitution leads to the logical conclusion that annulment is the appropriate remedy for one.

After all, the Supreme Court declares legislation that doesn’t comport with the Constitution null and void, as if it had never been passed.

It would logically follow that the Court could declare all legislation and executive actions of a presidency unauthorized by the Constitution to be null and void, as if Trump had never been elected.

The Constitution also gives Congress and the states the power to amend the Constitution, thereby annulling or altering whatever provisions came before. Here, too, it would logically follow that Congress and the states could, through amendment, annul a presidency they determine to be unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure that it does "logically follow," but Reich always seems so sure of himself--and he says "let me explain" a lot.

Anyways, that goes a whole lot further than what anyone here is suggesting.

You are likely trying to make a point. Why not just say what you mean, instead of the above bullshit?

Click to expand...

no i did make a point one you've now flat out ignored twice because you prefer talking points and misrepresentations. its not bullshit your just being lazy in your thinking. the thing is you can be impeached for non criminal things. like ignoring ones duties. this is the third time i'm going to have said this do not ignore it again. if you fail to do your job as an elected official to do other things like golfing you can be impeached for it. that would be viewed as incompetence or such. your making a strawman argument. stop it. when i say you can be impeached for golfing i'm not saying you can be impeached for liking golfing or going often. i'm saying if you are golfing instead of fufilling ones duties than yes you can be impeached for golfing. again if golfing is your vehicle for your incompetence or failure to uphold your oath of office than you damn well better believe you can be impeached for it. the only bullshit here is your rather lame initial argument and defense of your complete lack of a point.

no i did make a point one you've now flat out ignored twice because you prefer talking points and misrepresentations. its not bullshit your just being lazy in your thinking. the thing is you can be impeached for non criminal things. like ignoring ones duties. this is the third time i'm going to have said this do not ignore it again. if you fail to do your job as an elected official to do other things like golfing you can be impeached for it.

Click to expand...

That you could be impeached for neglecting your duties of office is not at all the same as being impeached for golfing. One does not get convicted of things that are not crimes.

You would help your case - for example, billvon might not ignore your rhetoric - if you were not quite so hyperbolic with them.

OK for gvmt employees
how about candidates?
so, then we have election law:
"(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election."

OK so we're back to defining value if it ain't cash or an office building....etc.
How does one quantify the "value" of information or advice.

Let us suppose that I would run for federal office and was offered advice by QQ, which I then listened to and used in my campaign.
Of what value was it?
Is there a qualitative/quantitative line in the sand
What would QQ have to do to cross that line?

...........................
Has this law been litigated by the courts?
partly
see:Bluman v. FEC

where the court ruled that the contribution had to be money/or monetizable
otherwise, such a prohibition could run afoul of the 1st amendment.
so
QQ may (seemingly)advise freely.

.....................................
So, Trump, Clinton, or sculptor can/may get information and/or advice from anyone in the entire world without violating the letter of any laws.

Just, please QQ if you decide to support my candidacy do NOT send money!

Click to expand...

So hey I have argued this point before but will do it again...
Say for example we have the following scenario:

1000 Australian walkers volunteer to door knock in support of the Democrats Presidential campaign. They pay for all their own expenses and receive no remuneration. They flew in from Australia with the sole purpose of effecting the election outcome.
1000 Russian walkers volunteer to door knock in support of the Republican Presidential campaign. They pay for all their own expenses and receive no remuneration. They flew in from Russia with the sole purpose of effecting the election outcome.

So we have this farcical situation which leads me to believe that the Mueller investigation team is more focused on other issues and that allegations/evidence of Russian meddling/collusion in the election is a smoke screen hiding other more important investigations.

So we have this farcical situation which leads me to believe that the Mueller investigation team is more focused on other issues and that allegations/evidence of Russian meddling/collusion in the election is a smoke screen hiding other more important investigations.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that Nixon wasn't impeached for the Watergate burglary - he was impeached for the cover-up.

value being the content of material evidence that would implicate a US national into loosing public support through a federal / state / local election ?
though that is not stating the presidential election.
is the presidential election a federal election ?

Click to expand...

There is a Federal Election Commission, but the presidential election, technically, is a series of statewide elections. There are no federal elections; as an American, the highest valence of my citizenship at which I vote is state.

Compare to a statewide ballot initiative; there is no federal analogue. The presidential elections set off a series of state rules about electors, who gather for the nearest thing to a national election we have. There is no general election that would receive uniform vote in the several states and affect the nation as a result at the specific federal level. That is, analogously, my voter registration, which runs through a state office, is actually administered at a county level; when voting, the county is the first valence of oversight for my ballot. A statewide initiative would face voters under the administration of county election offices, but the result would instruct the state legislature to do something that affects the entire state; there is no similar state administration of a federal election that directly affects Congress that way.

If Google or anyone else refers to a federal election, the phrase means it elects federal offices.

Perhaps you could clear up a confusion?
Is the term "Impeached" a process or an outcome of impeachment? If an outcome Nixon was never impeached. Yes?

Click to expand...

Impeachment is the bringing of charges by a vote in the House of Representatives. Nixon was not impeached. He resigned before that happened. Bill Clinton was impreached but was not convicted by the Senate.

If the Democrats regain the majority in the House it is possible for Trump to be impeached. It's not likely that he will be convicted by the Senate. To impeach in the House only requires a majority. To convict in the Senate requires a 2/3rd's majority. That isn't likely to happen.

Furthermore, Democrats have to consider how this would affect their chances of winning the next Presidential election (or the upcoming mid-term elections). Trump voters are still out there so if something is done to make them feel their voices aren't being heard we could have more "Trumps" elected.

There is a Federal Election Commission, but the presidential election, technically, is a series of statewide elections. There are no federal elections; as an American, the highest valence of my citizenship at which I vote is state.

Compare to a statewide ballot initiative; there is no federal analogue. The presidential elections set off a series of state rules about electors, who gather for the nearest thing to a national election we have. There is no general election that would receive uniform vote in the several states and affect the nation as a result at the specific federal level. That is, analogously, my voter registration, which runs through a state office, is actually administered at a county level; when voting, the county is the first valence of oversight for my ballot. A statewide initiative would face voters under the administration of county election offices, but the result would instruct the state legislature to do something that affects the entire state; there is no similar state administration of a federal election that directly affects Congress that way.

If Google or anyone else refers to a federal election, the phrase means it elects federal offices.

Click to expand...

It is really interesting to me how easy it is to not consider the fundamental differences between voting systems re: USA and Australia. I might add that I am no expert on those differences by any stretch.
In comparison, when I vote I could be voting for any level of Government, local, state or federal each representative relatively autonomous to the other.
Another example is that, as you probably know we just had a change of Prime Minister with out a pubic vote. ( the vote being sitting member party room only, due to lack of confidence)
So while the nations federal leadership has changed the federal ruling party/coalition hasn't changed and will not change until general elections are carried out and the party is voted out. (*) The current federal government may stay in power until that national vote, even if it changes leadership mid term. The PM is typically the leader of the party/coaltion and the nation by virtue of that party leadership.
State politics has little to do with it.

As an Australian discussing USA elections it is really easy to misunderstand those fundamental differences.
(*) with few exceptions.

It is really interesting to me how easy it is to not consider the fundamental differences between voting systems re: USA and Australia. I might add that I am no expert on those differences by any stretch.
In comparison, when I vote I could be voting for any level of Government, local, state or federal each representative relatively autonomous to the other.
Another example is that, as you probably know we just had a change of Prime Minister with out a pubic vote. ( the vote being sitting member party room only, due to lack of confidence)
So while the nations federal leadership has changed the federal ruling party/coalition hasn't changed and will not change until general elections are carried out and the party is voted out. The current federal government may stay in power until that national vote, even if it changes leadership mid term. The PM is typically the leader of the party/coaltion and the nation by virtue of that party leadership.
State politics has little to do with it.

As an Australian discussing USA elections it is really easy to misunderstand those fundamental differences.

Click to expand...

The biggest difference is not state politics, it's that you have a Parlimentary system and we have a President. We vote at the state level in national elections, we have an electoral college, which is funky, but the biggest difference is that we are not a Parlimentary system and have no Prime Minister, votes of no-confidence nor do we have a system where one party can call for early elections if it benefits them.

Yet the party is as significant here as there in the sense that even though they don't call for no-confidence or determine the dates of elections, they still have too much influence. In recent years, everything is done by party lines it seems. Politicians care more about the party mechanisms that about the people they are supposed to be representing.